About your Search

20121222
20121230
STATION
MSNBCW 5
CSPAN 3
CNNW 2
LANGUAGE
English 14
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
is whether boehner uses the hastert bill which was to never put a bill forward that the majority in the party is not going to vote for. if he will put the hastert rule aside and give republicans a path to vote no that allows the president and the democrats to add their votes where the minority of republicans to pass this thing and i think bill cunningham is right about how this may well play out. i don't think the president want -- the president does not want to go over the cliff. the last thing he needs right now is to -- is to risk going into a second recession. the first one he can blame on push and democrats and i'm there with him. the second one will be his and on his watch. >> sean: there has been a bill in the united states senate that extends the bush tax cuts for everybody and he could at least -- they can temporarily pass that. it has been law since 2001 and 2003. what is the big deal if they need more time. but he is no lincoln. i saw the movie, too, billy cunningham and if the economy goes south it is not the republican's blame this will be viewed as the obama era, not the boehner
-called hastert rule there. >> that's not the hastert rule. it was the majority. >> that's true. >> that's not the hastert rule, at all. >> know where you were going to with the majority and the majority. the numbers are wrong. he had closer to 90% of his caucus aligned there, with 20, 25 members that were unclear, but he had the overwhelming, over 90% -- >> he didn't have 218. >> agreed. that's because none of the democrats were going to join. >> that's an unreasonable standard. >> he's not negotiating with nancy pelosi. he's negotiating with the president of the united states trying to work this deal out and certainly it's become a discussion with nancy pelosi and it's not, it's a discussion with the president of the united states in term of trying to work this through and where does he have to turn? he has to turn back to the principles in this negotiation and that's what he's done. >> but i believe he could have passed his plan b if he hadn't gone with the $20 million cutoff and he'd moved toward the center and that had been under discussion with a $400,000 cut off or a $500,000 cut
. the problem has been this hastert rule, this policy of the republicans in the house, that they won't take a bill to the house floor, even if it will pass, even if it's important to the american people, if it doesn't have a majority of republican support. now, if he was willing to break the hastert rule and take the senate bill to the floor of the house, just like the democratic senate bill that would protect everybody under $250,000 a year, from any tax increase, it would pass. >> right. >> it would pass. >> all right. >> so his problem is a self-imposed one. it's this republican policy that they won't take a bill to the floor, unless a majority of their caucus approves, and the tea party effect in their caucus is so bad that they can't get that done. you saw that with the farm bill, you saw that with the highway bill, you saw that with plan "b." it's a repeated dysfunction. >> let's see if we can get past this hastertnation, so to speak. senator whitehouse, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> now let's turn to congresswoman schakowsky. welcome. >> thank you, professor. >> is there any wa
to happen is a decision -- the so-called hastert rule. i will not bring anything to the floor unless the majority of my caucus supports it. that is what may need to go here. there is clearly a majority support for doing something, just not a majority of republicans. that is the problem. host: let's look a potentially what you could face if the fiscal cliff begins in january. increase of $400 if your income is $20,000 a year. it increases substantially if your income is $40,000 to $64,000. deanna is on the phone from oregon. republican line. caller: there are so many issues to address here but i certainly wanted to talk to joshua specifically. i retired from the air force after 20 years and recently finished my master's degree. my thesis was on diagnosing and the affects of diagnosing on the economy. one of the things i discovered through my research, which i find remarkable -- my professors as well -- was that there were two types of social security. one that people pay into and one that people do not pay into. the one which is not paid into is the one that is consuming the majority
and only a handful of republicans. meaning as of right now, john boehner is sticking by the hastert rule. that's very significant because he feels that maybe they get something large scale if they can get a lot of republicans or this is just all for show to show the american people they're still there to the end. >> hold on. 6:30 on sunday? i mean, as harry reid pointed out, that's 48 hours. i mean, in terms of the optics and as you said, it's conference calls and no real details coming from the house republicans on what it is they would accept as harry reid was pointing out. 6:30 on sunday feels like not a real sense of urgency. >> no. it's this idea that they should be around here waiting for something to occur, but the urgency has not really been there to be honest with you either side the last few days. now you're starting to see it from the senate and harry reid. but for the house republicans it's get your ball gown and tuxedo on monday on capitol hill and be ready to stay there all night. this is so fascinating, karen, because the new congress comes in january 3rd. eric cantor said
separate things here. there's the filibuster in the senate. but the biggest obstacles is the hastert rule in the house. it has always been hard to see bill that a majority of house republicans would vote for that would be acceptable to president obama. so in many ways, i felt for really months, the only two choices were going over the cliff or abandoning that hastert rule and john boehner being willing to bring up a bill that could be passed by democratic votes, not passed by the majority of republicans. sounded a little more optimistic on the relative gauge we have than over the last couple of weeks. >> they're now running out of venues to discuss this. they discussed it at the white house. tried to get a deal between speaker boehner and president obama. now it's gone to the senate. harry reid and mitch mcconnell will try to work something out. after that, they have run out of both time and places to go for a deal. >> right. most of the time, when there's stalemate, it's tougher for the democrats than republicans because democrats are the party of activist government. they want things to
is going to have to happen is a decision -- the so- called hastert rule. i will not bring anything to the floor unless the majority of my caucus supports it. that is what may need to go here. there is clearly a majority support for doing something, just not a majority of republicans. that is the problem. host: let's look a potentially what you could face if the fiscal cliff begins in january. increase of $400 if your income is $20,000 a year. it increases substantially if your income is $40,000 to $64,000. deanna is on the phone from oregon. republican line. caller: there are so many issues to address here but i certainly wanted to talk to joshua specifically. i retired from the air force after 20 years and recently finished my master's degree. my thesis was on diagnosing and the affects of diagnosing on the economy. one of the things i discovered through my research, which i find remarkable -- my professors as well -- was that there were two types of social security. one that people pay into and one that people do not pay into. the one which is not paid into is the one that is con
-called hastert roll but whatever he can to get enough votes, period drawing from nancy pelosi's caucus and his own to get this true. >> how severe do you think the backlash would be against republicans, especially say looking forward to 2014, midterm elections? >> well, polls seem to show that most people will blame republicans for this if we go over the cliff. they already have this reputation of being obstructists and the spending cuts about by the way, i don't think they're going to do anything about that now. so i think these spending cuts are going to go into effect at least in the january. so that means i think if there's such a thing as going partially over the cliff, i think we'll probably do that. so $1.2 trillion spread out over ten years, that begin in january. unless they can find a way to avert that. of course, about half of that comes down on the military side. so you've got a lot of people in that sector and others who are very nervous about the spending cuts. i don't think they're going to do anything about that at the moment. >> paul brandus, the bureau chief of the west wing
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)